American school kids are often taught (or at least I was) that the American army’s time at Valley Forge was a cold and brutal period. Was it an unusually frigid winter, or has this been somewhat exaggerated?
It’s possible that the later encampment in New Jersey has been getting lumped in with Valley Forge. From a National Park Service pdf:
Certainly, hardship did occur at Valley Forge, but the encampment experience could
be characterized as “suffering as usual,” for privation was the continental soldier’s constant companion over the eight years of the war. Why then has Valley Forge been singled out as the pinnacle of distress? This is so because an early and romanticized version of the encampment story became a convenient parable to teach Americans about perseverance. As the story goes, this miserable suffering transformed the men so that they emerged in spring newly committed to the cause of liberty.In contrast to this mythical narrative of the Valley Forge experience that depicts the encampment as a time of bitter cold and starvation, primary sources offer a different portrayal. The Valley Forge winter was not even a severe one. Meteorological records kept by local resident Thomas Coombe show that the average daily temperature in the Philadelphia area during the first month of the encampment, that is from December 20, 1777 to January 20, 1778, was 33 degrees.1 The most severe winter of the war and concomitant suffering occurred in 1779-1780 when the army encamped at Morristown, New Jersey.2 Ironically, some of the difficulties faced by the army at Valley Forge were due to the mildness of the weather. Thaws and rain prevented vital supplies from being shipped in as rivers become treacherously swollen and roads muddy and impassable.
1 Thomas Coombe, “Meteorological Observations near Philadelphia,” American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA. 551.5, M56, III.
2 Here the Continental Army suffered through one of the worst winters in American history. Severe cold bit at the men and massive snows prevented food from being brought in. On January 11, 1780, General Nathanael Greene reported that “Such weather as we have had, never did I feel. For six or eight days it has been so extremely cold, that there was
no living abroad; the snow it is also very deep, and much drifted; it is so much so, that we drive over the tops of the fences.” Nathanael Greene to an Unidentified Person, 11 January 1780, Nathanael Greene, The Papers of Nathanael Greene, ed. Richard K. Showman (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 253; General Johann Kalb believed that “Those who have been in Valley Forge or Middlebrook during the last two winters, but have not tasted the cruelties of this one, know not what it is to suffer.” Major General John Kalb, Camp Morristown, 12 February 1780, , in Friedrich Kapp, The Life of John Kalb: Major General in the Revolutionary Army (New York: pvt. ptd., 1870), 183
It’s definitely been exaggerated. From what I’ve heard, it was a relatively mild winter. From the Wikipedia site:
Having hiked through both Valley Forge and Jockey Hollow (in winter, yet) when I was in the Scouts, I can easily picture the Morristown winter as far colder and worse.
Of course, it wasn’t a picnic – there was cold, a shortage of supplies, and disease at Vally Forge and at Morristown, but there’s definitely been myth-making active with regards to Valley Forge.
I grew up in Valley Forge. In the winter when the leaves are down, from my parent’s kitchen window you can see all the way across the Great Valley to the park. I went to Valley Forge Jr. High just 1/2 mile from the park. Trust me, there were no mild winters in Valley Forge. It’s 16°F there right now, 7°F last night. 0°F and below is common. Even now in a somewhat warmer climate it’s still bitterly cold there in depths of winter. Most of the troops who died over the winter fell to disease, but freezing temperatures and lack of food were major contributing factors.
It may not have been the coldest winter ever in Valley Forge 1777-78 but trust me, it was no picnic.
Just general comments: It was still during the Little Ice Age, so it was probably chilly. Also hiking around the area, those log cabins do not look like they would be very warm.
I’m not sure how accurate it is, but note that the famous “Washington Crossing the Delaware” painting has a couple of guys in the boat pushing ice away from the boat. I can’t remember the last time there was ice on the Delaware, much less in late December.
IIRC the continental army escaped from the British in Manhattan by dragging their cannon with them across the ice on the Hudson River near the north end of the island. Would this give a rough climate comparison vs today? I would imagine ice would need to be 4" to 6" thick for that to be practical, and still risky, since flowing water tends to undercut ice.
I think the artist forfeited all claims to accuracy when he showed Washington standing up in a boat that small without capsizing it.
Back in those days, whenever you gathered a bunch of people into an army, you ended up with a HUGE amount of deaths due to disease. So yes, a lot of men died there, but most didn’t die from the cold, they died from disease.
World War I was the first major war where more men died from combat than from disease.
One thing that is often glossed over in high school history classes is the fact that George Washington got his ass kicked up and down the battlefield before Velley Forge. In addition to misery and starving to death, Washington’s men at Valley Forge got a lot of proper training in modern (at the time) military discipline and tactics, how to maintain lines and reform lines quickly once they were broken, as well as bayonet fighting. Today, bayonets are a last ditch weapon, but back then they played a major role on the battlefield, usually accounting for somewhere around a third of all battlefield casualties.
It was only after all of that training (with a lot of help from a few Frenchmen, which also tends to get glossed over in history classes) that Washington’s army was finally able to go toe to toe with the British.
The idea that the men came out of Valley Forge hardened from the harsh conditions and that is what made them finally able to defeat the British is a myth.
Yet Martha Washington came and stayed with her husband.
Those are all reproductions built over 100 years later. They are still probably pretty close to the originals based on information available.
Also, they didn’t have the warm clothing like we have today.
Well, I’m in Valley Forge right now, and the temp was unseasonably cold this morning! I breathed in and felt that odd sensation when one’s nose hairs freeze: a sure sign of 0F.
Nothing more to add though.
Which I never understood. Why stand in big lines when you can just fire away from the trees?
I thought most of the military training came from Von Steuben, who was German.
Because muskets.
You can’t fire quickly enough with muskets to completely destroy a line, so while marching in lines would be suicide today, it was extremely sucessful back in Washington’s day.
Here’s why. The British are marching in a big long line. Washington’s men are hiding in small groups behind various clumps of trees (which they actually did at times before they learned proper military discipline and tactics). Since you can’t fire the muskets quickly enough to wipe out the line like you can today, the entire line reaches the closest clump of trees. Since only a small number of soldier can hide behind any particular lump of trees, you now have one small group of Washington’s men facing the entire British line. Completely outnumbered and overwhelmed, Washington’s men break and run. The British line continues forward, reaching the next clump of trees, and again, it’s a small group against the entire British line. This second group is overwhelmed, so they also break and run. And so on and so forth, until Washington’s men are completely punted off of the battlefield, and the British get yet another battlefield win.
With the weapons of the time, the only way you could really stop a huge line like that was to meet it with a line of your own.
Washington’s men learned proper bayonet fighting and learned how to meet lines with lines so that they wouldn’t always end up breaking and running. Only then could they go toe to toe with the British.
I was thinking of Lafayette and somehow forgot about Von Steuben. I should check my facts instead of posting off the top of my head. 
Thanks for the correction.
Sources here on the Dope have informed me that this was considered the best formation for engagement at the time. For one thing they were using muskets with little accuracy so sniping from cover was ineffective. Eventually these battles turned into bayonet charges and hand to hand combat which doesn’t work when you’re hiding behind a tree. There was also a frequent problem with powder and cartridges getting wet. As an example the Battle of the Clouds that happened a short distance from Valley Forge.
The myth of the British “foolishly” lining up in their bright red uniforms out in the open, while Washington’s men dressed to blend in with the landscape and picked the off from the trees, is one that I still hear repeated occasionally. It appeals to our love of the “scrappy underdog,” I guess. And maybe to the idea of good old common sense being superior to hidebound professional training.
There is ice on the river right now. I’ve lived near the Delaware nearly 20 years and I’ve often seen ice. December is certainly early for it.
To expand on this a little more, the standard British infantry musket at the time did not have sights on it. I happen to own (and shoot) a replica Model 1756 British Musket. You can basically use the screw that holds the tang on the back end of the barrel onto the stock as a rear sight, and you can use the bayonet lug on the front of the musket as a front sight, but they aren’t anywhere near as good as modern rifle sights.
As far as accuracy goes, smooth bore muskets always fire curve balls. The round ball is going to randomly hit one side or another as it goes down the barrel, so it’s going to come out spinning in some random direction. It’s more accurate than some people think, but still the musket ball only tends to go straight for about 50 to 75 yards or so. After that, which way it goes is anyone’s guess. You can make it more accurate by using a more tightly fitting musket ball, but tighter balls also become more difficult to load as the barrel gets fouled. The British, as well as pretty much all militaries of the time, preferred to use loose fitting balls, considering rate of fire and a lack of getting your musket all fouled up with a stuck ball more important than the slight benefit in accuracy that you get from a tighter ball.
Rifles did exist at the time, but they were mostly only used for hunting. The reason is that the black powder from back then tended to quickly foul the barrel. It’s no big deal for hunting. You just run a cleaning patch or two down the barrel after a couple of shots and you’re good. But you don’t have time in the middle of a battle to stop and run some cleaning patches down your musket. Napoleon actually refused to allow any rifles in his army. Other militaries allowed them, but they only saw very limited use in most cases.
In addition to the Valley Forge myths, there is another myth that the Americans, with their home-made and more accurate Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles, were able to defeat the British with their “inferior” smooth bore muskets and their “inferior” tactics of using lines. This myth is also false.
Not only that, but if you get the musket itself wet, it just goes click since you won’t get a spark when the flint in the lock hits the steel frizzen. They used to make itty bitty leather covers for the lock to keep the frizzen and the pan dry in damp weather.
Flintlocks also don’t fire if you don’t maintain your flint and if you don’t clean your frizzen religiously.
There’s a reason they switched to mercury fulminate caps in the 1840s.
I’d bet winter encampments in the northeast in those days were miserable no matter what the temperatures.